How do you determine value? What makes your version of value better than that of those that you are discriminating against?

How is choosing who you hire choosing who is given freedom? People are free to seek employment wherever they choose.If such discrimination is small enough that it is the minority than there should be plenty of other places where someone could receive employment. The majority in this case would be serving their purpose by providing places to work for the group being discriminated against. Not by forcing other business owners to comply with their wishes.

Going out of your way to harm another is different from denying your support. If the employers harass the employees in some manner than the government should step in but denying a job to someone is not causing them undue harm.

Edit: I agree that total freedom is impossible and that freedom can only be maximized. However I fail to see how creating such discriminatory laws would increase the freedom of the population.

I'm guessing that you think the role of business and commerce, and economic liberties are very important to society, because most people who take a generally anti-regulatory position do. My question would be, why it is that businesses gets a free ticket, and don't have to involve themselves in the fascilitation of, and get to be the last thing that actually responds to, progressive social changes, especially if theses business are so integral to society?

I think they are important, but I'm not sure what it necessarily has to do with being anti-regulatory. First of all, I approve of regulations to protect consumers from fraud, or to protect safety. Second, I think business need not involve itself in the facilitation of government initiatives toward social progress because businesses are citizens of a kind. Private citizens, while they must obey the law, are not and cannot be reasonably prohibited from being racist, sexist or just plain a-holes. I think businesses are the same. They don't get a free ticket any more than a private citizen who retains the right to hate black people can be said to get a free ticket. You don't need to make businesses color blind by force of law any more than you need to teach a baby to walk. When it's time, the baby will walk. And when society at large places a value on diversity, business will have no choice but to evolve and do the same. As they have.

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

Might I say the same thing about dealing with a roving band of murderers and rapists?

You might, if earning a living is viewed as a crime on par with raping and murdering. Like I said, being an a-hole isn't against the law.

I think that is factually and ideally incorrect. Society and civlization was certainly not born or developed on defending so-all inalienable rights. And ideally, quality of life in a societal as a whole should not be worse as a result of technically following one of those rights to a tee.

But there is no evidence that quality of life would be worse in this instance AT ALL. In fact, improvement in living standards actually SLOWED after government intervention into hiring practices. So, I don't see where your point lies here.

Right it is. I can't imagine getting good results any other way. Something representative in some way is ideal. If there is a mass disatisfaction with something, it damn well should be that case that the will of the people can take initiative against it.

You mean like when there was mass dissatisfaction with white people marrying black people? Or when there was mass dissatisfaction with immigration from Asia? Or when there was mass dissatisfaction with people drinking alcohol or smoking marijuana? There damn well better be a way to prevent the people from imposing their will whenever they feel like it, otherwise this is no longer a free country.

And efficiency for what? Efficient for a business owner (MAYBE)? If something
is efficient in helping maybe a tiny number of people at the expense of money more, then it's an efficiency that can be, perhaps should be reduced.

The government intervention didn't even help here. So, it's been a net negative to most minorities, since their tax money has gone to fund enforcement of laws that aren't really helping them, AND have made it more expensive for business to function. That means less hiring, which disproportionately hurts people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale.

You know, I don't if that's true or not. I hadn't heard that. However, that kind of figure is instantly questionable. What factors might have gone into it being so fast before or slower aftwards? In what time frame is the entirety of this average drawn from? It could easily be the case that factors not related to the law at all were involved, etc.. and that the 1964 civi rights act was still beneficial.

I believe it was Thomas Sowell who cited the statistics. Basically, it stated that African-Americans had greater gains in employment and education between WWII and 1965 than they had from 1965 to the 1970s. So, the general trend was on a massive upswing that continued, but less dramatically. The numbers before the 1930s were, of course, atrocious. As to other causes being involved, I am sure there are lots of reasons why this happened. Still, there is a general trend between government intervention and lack of results in this period. After Medicare and Medicaid, the cost of health care rose, and, eventually, a lower percentage of Americans had health insurance. They declared a War on Poverty, and poverty rates remained level for years. They went into Vietnam to save it from communism, and the entire country was communist within a decade. The War on Drugs made drug-dealing more profitable. It happens again and again.

Tell me, do you oppose that act?

I do, yes. I think private individuals or organizations should be free to hire/fire/sell/buy as they please. Free association is a bedrock principle in a free society.

I love how the other students are all mad at her for "ruining their prom".

I can see they're growing up to be fine members of their community. It would have been so easy for the parents to become heroes by organizing an inclusive prom, but of course they choose to disgrace their town instead. Can't have their little angels tainted by the gays.

the fact that some people want to deny other people from openly choosing their own romantic partners is so beyond me. and to say that it "taints" society is like the argument that women dressing provocatively is the cause of rape. my sexuality does not have anything to do with your sexuality. and in the states, by the way, living in a "wholesome", "christian" society is not one of your rights. so my sexuality does not interfere with any of your rights. therefore my sexuality should not be your issue -- even if it does make you want to do things you consider immoral.

Just a reminder to the non-white kids, non-disabled kids who went to this event: Forty-five years ago, in Birmingham, Alabama the same stunt got pulled on a black girl.

the amount of parallels between gay rights and civil rights is ridiculous. people like to argue that "this time, it's about morality", but the kkk likes to assert the biblical basis for racism, too.

I love how the other students are all mad at her for "ruining their prom".

I can see they're growing up to be fine members of their community. It would have been so easy for the parents to become heroes by organizing an inclusive prom, but of course they choose to disgrace their town instead. Can't have their little angels tainted by the gays.

Now to be honest that's just the kind of attitude which makes me want to provide that community with all the support I can.

I reckon its a good thing too, once the schools go bankrupt trying to please everyone with identity issues we'll maybe see enough of a breakdown to result in a sensible education programme.

the fact that some people want to deny other people from openly choosing their own romantic partners is so beyond me.

Which I didnt see happening here.

and to say that it "taints" society is like the argument that women dressing provocatively is the cause of rape.

Er, no its not, there's no moral equivalence what so ever between those two issues.

my sexuality does not have anything to do with your sexuality.

OK, cool, then why make an insistence that its profiled in this way?

I mean now that there's the precident I'd expect any heterosexual couples who want to quickly cash in to file suits against homosexual events or welfare agencies for failing to recognise and cater for them properly.

and in the states, by the way, living in a "wholesome", "christian" society is not one of your rights. so my sexuality does not interfere with any of your rights. therefore my sexuality should not be your issue -- even if it does make you want to do things you consider immoral.

Hmm, yeah, its so cool and all, you know.

the amount of parallels between gay rights and civil rights is ridiculous. people like to argue that "this time, it's about morality", but the kkk likes to assert the biblical basis for racism, too.

and where are they now? prison. zing

Yeah, there's a lot of veterans of black civil rights struggles who would give you the argument there and again I'd strongly suggest that there's no moral equivalence.